Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:16 AM - Re: mag switch and BRS (dixieshack@webtv.net (Mike and Dixie Shackelford))
2. 06:07 AM - prop (Bob Bean)
3. 07:06 AM - Re: Props (John Hauck)
4. 07:41 AM - Re: Props (John Hauck)
5. 08:08 AM - Re: Props (Richard Pike)
6. 08:40 AM - Two Stroke Power Bands (John Hauck)
7. 08:53 AM - Tire retailer (Jim Gerken)
8. 09:15 AM - Re: Tire retailer (John Hauck)
9. 09:16 AM - Re: Props (CaptainRon)
10. 10:46 AM - Re: Props (Richard Pike)
11. 11:23 AM - Re: BRS Parachutes (Dave & Eve Pelletier)
12. 11:29 AM - Re: Props (Rick & Martha Neilsen)
13. 12:09 PM - Re: Props (John Hauck)
14. 12:55 PM - Vertical Stabilizer (John Hauck)
15. 01:38 PM - Sun n Fun Mogas Enroute (dama)
16. 01:58 PM - Re: Vertical Stabilizer (Richard Pike)
17. 02:06 PM - Re: Vertical Stabilizer & Yaw Compensation (Jack & Louise Hart)
18. 02:18 PM - Re: Props (Richard Pike)
19. 02:22 PM - Re: Sun n Fun Mogas Enroute (John Hauck)
20. 02:27 PM - Re: Vertical Stabilizer & Yaw Compensation (John Hauck)
21. 02:30 PM - Re: Vertical Stabilizer (John Hauck)
22. 03:33 PM - Re: Two Stroke Power Bands (Dave Rains)
23. 03:39 PM - Re: Props (Don Gherardini)
24. 03:57 PM - Re: Props (John Hauck)
25. 04:18 PM - Re: Sun n Fun Mogas Enroute (dama)
26. 04:30 PM - Re: Shoulder Belt / BRS Deployment Question (ALLENB007@aol.com)
27. 04:38 PM - Re: Sun n Fun Mogas Enroute (John Hauck)
28. 05:12 PM - Re: Tire retailer ()
29. 06:40 PM - Re: Sun n Fun Mogas Enroute (dama)
30. 08:54 PM - Re: 447 lighting coil/ Key West regulator (Bruce McElhoe)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: mag switch and BRS |
message of Sun, 23 Mar 2003 23:56:15 -0800
--> Kolb-List message posted by: dixieshack@webtv.net (Mike and Dixie Shackelford)
Jim, I mounted my BRS release handle to the right of the seat bottom on
one of those diagonal fuse gussets....easy to reach with my right hand.
I mounted my mag switch (off, L,R, both) on the right side of the seat
bottom frame on a bracket of it's own. Both the BRS release and the mag
switch are within easy natural reach of my right hand, convenient to
each other in an "awshit" situation.
I believe in the basic laws of nature: what goes up must come down, it
ain't the fall, it's the sudden stop, green side up and flat side back,
and I also believe in regime change in Washington.
Hope to see you guys in Lakeland
Mike
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Bob Bean <slyck@frontiernet.net>
Ahhh me...just had to join the fray. (after deleting my morning african
financial
opportunity). Those formula 1 racers had to get hp from a C-90, so they
just
spin the hell out of em to do it. -natcherly that limits the prop diameter.
To get speed they had to seriously keep it light, cutting a redrive out
of the
picture right there. If you have ever experienced the feeling of getting the
right airfoil "on the step". it's a fragile regime limited by weight,
turbulence,
and sometimes just descending air. Very interesting to look out at the
bottom
surface of a wing pointing downhill and still maintaining level flight.
-BB do not archive
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
> Here's what I think: I have upgraded from a 64 HP 532 to a 65 HP 582, and
> from a 66" Ivo 2 blade to a 68" Ivo 2 blade, and I expect to both climb
> faster and go faster.
> Richard Pike
Morning Richard/Gang:
I have never used anything smaller than a 3 blade
70" prop on the Mark III, when powered with the
582. I did test a 72" 3 blade Warp Drive Taper
Tip Prop for about 100 hours. It produced the
best overall performance but it also produced the
most noise. Even with the increased noise, I
would have left it on the airplane, but had a
blade strike a few days prior to departure for
Alaska, 2001. Built a jig and cut an inch off
each blade, reducing its diameter to 70". I still
get nearly the same performance, perhaps a little
less, but overall noise is reduced and I get an
additional 1" of clearance.
I did test a 70" two blade Warp Drive, but was not
nearly as satisfied with it as with the 3 blade.
I think a lot of prop noise is produced based on
proximity of the blades to the aircraft
structure. I was flying with a 2" prop
extension. Went to the 4" after the blade
strike. This also reduced prop noise.
Another problem I was experiencing was prop/gear
box back lash at start up of the 912S engine. The
old 912 started pretty violently with 9.5 to 1
compression ratio. The new 912S with 10.5 to 1
compression ratio even more so. If the torsional
vibration dampner gets a little worn/loose, this
agrevates the problem. Also additional weight of
the prop helps induce backlash. What happens is,
at startup the engine gets in a back lash mode and
will not come above idle and out of this mode.
What is happening is the shaking is aeriating the
fuel in the float bowls. Best way to start the
912S, IMO is normal start when cold, full choke,
throttle closed. When warm, crack the throttle to
a position that equates to aprx 2800 rpm, no
choke. If backlash is encountered, shut down the
engine immediately. Do not attempt to make the
engine overcome the startup problem. This usually
only adds to the problem. Let the engine sit long
enough to expell the air from the fuel in the
float bowl. Attempt restart.
I might add. I flew down to Ronnie Smith's, South
Mississippi Light Aircraft (Rotax service center
and a good one) a few weeks ago. Ronnie pulled my
gear box and reshimmed the torsional vibration
dampner absolutely as tight as he could get it.
Time on engine was 412 hrs. This adjustment also
improved start up of the 912S and eliminated some
minor in flight vibes.
I enjoyed everyones discussion of prop
performance.
john h
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
> The old 912 started pretty violently with 9.5 to 1
> compression ratio. The new 912S with 10.5 to 1
> compression ratio even more so.
Morning Gang:
Made a mistake. 912 comp ratio is 9.0 to 1.
912S " " " 10.5 to 1.
Meant to check it out before I hit the send
button, but...............
john h
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike <rwpike@charter.net>
I seriously considered going to a 70" or 72" prop, but was reluctant to go
that big, and then when the chance to get a 68" at a good price came up, I
jumped on it, as it was ideal according to my preferences.
The reason I wanted to stay a bit shorter on prop length is that I prefer
to run lower RPM's at cruise than most of the lister's do. I have heard the
arguments, - you run your engine your way, and I'll run mine my way.
I want/need more pitch in the prop in order to do this.
I am also a firm believer that a 2 blade prop gives a better speed spread
than a three blade prop, a three blade prop has to run less pitch for any
given diameter and horsepower, so you have a smaller window of cruise
speed/top speed.
If you normally run your engine at 5,800 rpm, that RPM is so close to max
speed that you would not really notice the difference, but if you like to
run your engine down around 5,000, then your cruise speed with a full
length, lower pitched 3-blade prop totally goes to pot. Not so with a
slightly shorter two blade prop (which is less than ideal for climb, but
still acceptable) because you crank in more pitch to soak up the extra
power at full throttle. Which in turn gives you good cruise speed at lower
RPM's.
On the somewhat torque-limited, peaky 532, I was able to cruise at 65 MPH
at 5,200 rpm with attendant lower fuel burn rates and lower noise. I expect
even better results with the new 582.
But we have hashed a lot of this over before, so I will shut up about it
now and wait until I get back in the air before I run on any more about it.
And if it don't work out, I promise to fess' up.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
And since this post is pretty long - Do Not Archive
At 09:06 AM 3/24/03 -0600, you wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
>
>
> > Here's what I think: I have upgraded from a 64 HP 532 to a 65 HP 582, and
> > from a 66" Ivo 2 blade to a 68" Ivo 2 blade, and I expect to both climb
> > faster and go faster.
>
> > Richard Pike
>
>Morning Richard/Gang:
>
>I have never used anything smaller than a 3 blade
>70" prop on the Mark III, when powered with the
>582. I did test a 72" 3 blade Warp Drive Taper
>Tip Prop for about 100 hours. It produced the
>best overall performance but it also produced the
>most noise. Even with the increased noise, I
>would have left it on the airplane, but had a
>blade strike a few days prior to departure for
>Alaska, 2001. Built a jig and cut an inch off
>each blade, reducing its diameter to 70". I still
>get nearly the same performance, perhaps a little
>less, but overall noise is reduced and I get an
>additional 1" of clearance.
>
>I did test a 70" two blade Warp Drive, but was not
>nearly as satisfied with it as with the 3 blade.
>
>I think a lot of prop noise is produced based on
>proximity of the blades to the aircraft
>structure. I was flying with a 2" prop
>extension. Went to the 4" after the blade
>strike. This also reduced prop noise.
>
>Another problem I was experiencing was prop/gear
>box back lash at start up of the 912S engine. The
>old 912 started pretty violently with 9.5 to 1
>compression ratio. The new 912S with 10.5 to 1
>compression ratio even more so. If the torsional
>vibration dampner gets a little worn/loose, this
>agrevates the problem. Also additional weight of
>the prop helps induce backlash. What happens is,
>at startup the engine gets in a back lash mode and
>will not come above idle and out of this mode.
>What is happening is the shaking is aeriating the
>fuel in the float bowls. Best way to start the
>912S, IMO is normal start when cold, full choke,
>throttle closed. When warm, crack the throttle to
>a position that equates to aprx 2800 rpm, no
>choke. If backlash is encountered, shut down the
>engine immediately. Do not attempt to make the
>engine overcome the startup problem. This usually
>only adds to the problem. Let the engine sit long
>enough to expell the air from the fuel in the
>float bowl. Attempt restart.
>
>I might add. I flew down to Ronnie Smith's, South
>Mississippi Light Aircraft (Rotax service center
>and a good one) a few weeks ago. Ronnie pulled my
>gear box and reshimmed the torsional vibration
>dampner absolutely as tight as he could get it.
>Time on engine was 412 hrs. This adjustment also
>improved start up of the 912S and eliminated some
>minor in flight vibes.
>
>I enjoyed everyones discussion of prop
>performance.
>
>john h
>
>
Help Stop Spam!
Delete all address information (especially mine) off everything you
forward, and make Blind Carbon Copy a way of life.
Thanks! And have a blessed day.
rp
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Two Stroke Power Bands |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
> I have heard the
> arguments, - you run your engine your way, and I'll run mine my way.
Richard P
Richard/Gang:
I don't mess with two strokes anymore, except on
this List. Been years, 13+, since I have owned
and flown one.
I flew every two stroke I ever owned on cross
country flights at 5,800 rpm. That was everything
from Cuyuna to 582. 5,800 rpm with 582 on my MK
III gave me a good solid 80 mph cruise. Not bad
for a big fat two place UL. Burned 5 to 5.5 gph
at that power setting.
Of course the 582 was propped to bump the redline
at WOT straight and level flight.
Perhaps some of our two stroke experts can help
educate me on operation of our two stroke power
plants. I prefer to operate them above the point
in the power band where the two stroke gets on the
pipe. My belief is that the two stroke will
operate more efficiently and perform optimally
above this point where it shifts from operating on
port timing to the point that it operates on port
timing in conjunction with the benefit of the
tuned expansion chamber exhaust system. I do not
know about the newer two strokes, but on the older
ones we used for UL aviation, it was quite
noticeable at about 5200 to 5500 rpm. In that
particular rpm range the engines would not settle
down. Like trying to balance on a ball. Engine
revs would roll up and down depending on what part
of that rpm bracket you were in. Above where the
engine came up on the pipe, things cleaned up, put
out a lot of power, ran and felt good.
My question, is there a lot of difference
operating below and above the point in the power
band where the engine comes on the pipe?
Do we get better performance, reliability,
endurance, above or below the engine comes up on
the pipe?
john h
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
03/24/2003 10:52:13 AM
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Jim Gerken" <gerken@us.ibm.com>
What's the name and phone number of the aircraft tire retailer you guys
have talked about? Time for the Cheng Chins to go on the burning pile.
The size they read is 15x6.00-6, I assume there is a real aircraft tire of
same size. Thanks.
Jim Gerken
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tire retailer |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
> What's the name and phone number of the aircraft tire retailer you guys
> have talked about? Time for the Cheng Chins to go on the burning pile.
> The size they read is 15x6.00-6, I assume there is a real aircraft tire of
> same size. Thanks.
>
> Jim Gerken
Jim/Gang:
I use Dresser:
http://www.desser.com/
What are you going to put them on?
john h
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: CaptainRon <CaptainRon@theriver.com>
3/23/03 23:23TSO1953@aol.com
> Not to beat this to death ( well probly should ) but a small prop doesn't
> work well on a Kolb at any normal HP.
> Tom O.
==========================
Don't worry about beating this to death. I for one like looking at this
stuff from different angles.
If you remember what I said earlier, my rules for evaluating props. rule-1
it has to be below mach, rule-2 it has to absorb/convert the power put to it
into thrust.
Lets assume that you are right,,, that small props don't work well on a
Kolb. But you also know that that *a* particular smaller prop should be able
to absorb the power put to it, because we set down and done the math. Then
what is the problem? I mean you and I just figured out that a 60 incher at
3200 rpm should (an example didn't do any math) be able to turn 100hp into
100 hp worth of thrust. But for some reason that 75 incher turning at 2500
rpm's is doing a world of good better, but the math says that both should
perform the same in their respective optimal/pitch/rpm range. :-)
Well its not really a puzzler, because math don't lie if you done it right.
So why do you think there would be a difference in noticable performance?
:-)
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike <rwpike@charter.net>
The year after Chuck Sluczarcyk (sp?) patented his reduction drive system,
I heard him do a forum at Oshkosh, and if I remember his terminology right,
he called it swept volume. It is better to use your 100 hp to move a huge
column of air at a lower velocity than to move a small column of air at a
high velocity. The effective or useful thrust is greater, and when you
carry the premise to it's logical conclusion, you have a helicopter, or a
VTOL aircraft. I would think that the turbofan engines on modern jets
compared to the small diameter engines on jets of 30 years ago would fall
into the same category.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Do Not Archive
At 10:09 AM 3/24/03 -0700, you wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: CaptainRon <CaptainRon@theriver.com>
>
>If you remember what I said earlier, my rules for evaluating props. rule-1
>it has to be below mach, rule-2 it has to absorb/convert the power put to it
>into thrust.
>Lets assume that you are right,,, that small props don't work well on a
>Kolb. But you also know that that *a* particular smaller prop should be able
>to absorb the power put to it, because we set down and done the math. Then
>what is the problem? I mean you and I just figured out that a 60 incher at
>3200 rpm should (an example didn't do any math) be able to turn 100hp into
>100 hp worth of thrust. But for some reason that 75 incher turning at 2500
>rpm's is doing a world of good better, but the math says that both should
>perform the same in their respective optimal/pitch/rpm range. :-)
>Well its not really a puzzler, because math don't lie if you done it right.
>So why do you think there would be a difference in noticable performance?
>:-)
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: BRS Parachutes |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Dave & Eve Pelletier" <pelletier@cableone.net>
John,
Check out my pic of the installation of a BRS on my MK III.. I included
a couple more pics with the compartment open and a view from the left front
but maybe I didn't do it right cuz they didn't get posted.
AzDave
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Raeburn" <raeburn@snowhill.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: BRS Parachutes
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: John Raeburn <raeburn@snowhill.com>
>
> I am planing on installing a BRS parachute on my Kolb MK III (Classic). It
> has a Rotax 582 engine.
>
> BRS recommends either using 1050 VLS or a 1050 canister system.
> Any suggestions on which is the better type to buy?
>
> John Raeburn
>
>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Rick & Martha Neilsen" <neilsenrm@cs.com>
OK
I think we are now all in agreement that a bigger prop produces more thrust.
I do want to throw out one more point. You can go with too large even when
you are way under the critical point of your tips going supersonic. If you
get carried away with too large a prop and too much pitch you will find that
on take off that you can't get to your rated power RPM. If in the same
situation you pitch the prop for good static or climb performance you will
find your engine hitting redline before get a good cruise speed. The trick
is to get just the right size of prop were you get good cruise speed AND
good climb performance. This a trial and error process with a new engine and
airplane combination.
Rick Neilsen
Redrive VW powered MKIII
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kolb-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Richard Pike
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Props
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike <rwpike@charter.net>
The year after Chuck Sluczarcyk (sp?) patented his reduction drive system,
I heard him do a forum at Oshkosh, and if I remember his terminology right,
he called it swept volume. It is better to use your 100 hp to move a huge
column of air at a lower velocity than to move a small column of air at a
high velocity. The effective or useful thrust is greater, and when you
carry the premise to it's logical conclusion, you have a helicopter, or a
VTOL aircraft. I would think that the turbofan engines on modern jets
compared to the small diameter engines on jets of 30 years ago would fall
into the same category.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Do Not Archive
At 10:09 AM 3/24/03 -0700, you wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: CaptainRon <CaptainRon@theriver.com>
>
>If you remember what I said earlier, my rules for evaluating props. rule-1
>it has to be below mach, rule-2 it has to absorb/convert the power put to
it
>into thrust.
>Lets assume that you are right,,, that small props don't work well on a
>Kolb. But you also know that that *a* particular smaller prop should be
able
>to absorb the power put to it, because we set down and done the math. Then
>what is the problem? I mean you and I just figured out that a 60 incher at
>3200 rpm should (an example didn't do any math) be able to turn 100hp into
>100 hp worth of thrust. But for some reason that 75 incher turning at 2500
>rpm's is doing a world of good better, but the math says that both should
>perform the same in their respective optimal/pitch/rpm range. :-)
>Well its not really a puzzler, because math don't lie if you done it right.
>So why do you think there would be a difference in noticable performance?
>:-)
>
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
> The trick
> is to get just the right size of prop were you get good cruise speed AND
> good climb performance. This a trial and error process with a new engine and
> airplane combination.
>
> Rick Neilsen
Rick/Gang:
Agree with you 100%.
I think you eliminated an important point:
*Prop to bump the red line, wide open throttle
(WOT) straight and level flight.
Something else to consider. Most engines for
ultralights and light planes have two red lines.
One is similar to military power. For the 912 it
is 5,800 rpm for 5 minutes maximum. The other red
line is max continuous duty at 5,500 rpm. 912S is
the same thing. I use max continuous red line of
5,500 rpm because I use a ground adjustable prop.
The only way to get that additional horse power is
with an inflight adjustable prop.
I am not sure about the two stroke mil power and
continuous duty power redlines, but I thing they
are 6,800 for 5 min and 6,500 rpm max continuous.
If I was flying a two stroke I would pitch for
6,500 rpm WOT straight and level flight.
Rotax doesn't spell out "mil power" as such.
However, for all the two strokes, 582, 503, and
447, Power and Torque rpms are the same. Max
torque is at 6,000 rpm and max power is at 6,500
rpm. Red line is 6,800 rpm. So.......to me
anything over 6,500 rpm is wasted. I would pitch
for WOT straight and level flight bump the red
line at 6,500 rpm. If I do that, the EGTs as the
engine comes from the factory will be right where
they are supposed to be.
If I prop this way I will get the best cruise and
the best climb at that pitch setting. A lot of
you do not want to pitch this way. You want to
pull more pitch and slow down the two stroke.
That is ok too (for you) but it ain't the way I do
it. Start loading the prop and you will have to
lean out the mixture. Unload the prop and you
will have to increase fuel and richen it up.
Pitch it right and it will fly right out of the
box without diddling with it. hehehe
Take care,
john h
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Vertical Stabilizer |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
Hi Kolbers:
Got the fabric off the upper vertical stabilizer
this afternoon. Sure enough, it is worn out and
ready for a complete rebuild. This particular
part of my Mark III has taken a pretty good
beating over the last 1,760.0 hours. Based on
marks on the inside of the fabric, the prop blast
is hitting the left side of the stabilizer and
little or nothing on the right side. Thus the
reason for a lot of yaw trim to overcome this
effect.
I believe the leading edge of the vertical
stabilizer failure recently on two seperate
occassions was agrevated by experimentation of
offsetting the leading edge to attempt to overcome
some of the adverse yaw characteristic. That is
the price I have paid for seeing if that mod would
work. It didn't. The trim tab size,
configuration, I have now has neutralized this
adverse yaw characteristic. As a side note, the
MK III doesn't really care if it is in yaw trim or
not. Most of the time on the airframe was flown
with the slip/skid indicator 1/2 ball out of
trim. No significant performance/handling
increase has been noted. Probably should have
said, no performance/handling increase noted,
other than the ball is now centered. :-)
I haven't cleaned up the vertical stabilizer stubs
on the tailpost enough to see if I have a stress
crack on the edge of the welds or not. But this
is one area that will get a particularly good look
before I start my rebuild. I'll probably take the
tail post with me to Lakeland so I can stop by my
big brother's on the way home to check this part
out for me. Jim has always wanted to build the
entire tailsection out of 4130. This may be a
good time to do the upper vertical stabilizer. We
shall see. Our lower vertical stabilizer is all
4130, no aluminum.
I'll try to keep you all posted as I continue with
the rebuild and refinish.
I do not think this is a concern for most Kolb
aircraft. If you have pushed the leading edge of
the upper vertical stabilizer off center in an
attempt to reduce adverse yaw, then it would be a
good idea to keep you eye on the leading edge
tube. If you have a high time Kolb, more than
1,200 to 1,500 hours, then it wouls also be a good
idea to keep this area checked out.
I do not know of any other Kolb that has
experienced this problem. Anybody else heard of
this problem?
john h
PS: If I rebuild out of aluminum, I did
originally and will this time, use .058 for the
leading edge. In addition, I will use a 6 to 12
inch sleeve inside and centered on the area where
the internal bracing is reveted to the leading
edge. Should not have a problem here in the
future.
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Sun n Fun Mogas Enroute |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "dama" <dama@mindspring.com>
Sounds good. By the way does anybody sell MOGAS anymore or I am looking at
getting a crew car to chase down po-dunk Amoco's?
Thanks,
Kip
http://www.springeraviation.net/
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Sun n Fun questions
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
>
>
> > Remember to stay below 500
> > feet south of the airstrip.
>
> Kip/Gang:
>
> I didn't do a good job on the above.
>
> Stay below 500 feet AGL, from 5 miles out and
> south of the field. GA traffic to the main
> Lakeland runway is at 500 feet and above. To the
> east of the UL strip is the rotary wing airspace,
> so stay south of the UL airstrip.
>
> john h
>
>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Vertical Stabilizer |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike <rwpike@charter.net>
At 02:55 PM 3/24/03 -0600, you wrote:
>If I were you, I'd go with Jim. 4130 would not be that much heavier.
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
Do Not Archive
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
>
>Hi Kolbers:
>
>Got the fabric off the upper vertical stabilizer
>this afternoon. Sure enough, it is worn out and
>ready for a complete rebuild.
<snip>
> Jim has always wanted to build the
>entire tailsection out of 4130. This may be a
>good time to do the upper vertical stabilizer. We
>shall see. Our lower vertical stabilizer is all
>4130, no aluminum.
><snip>
>john h
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Vertical Stabilizer & Yaw Compensation |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Jack & Louise Hart <jbhart@ldd.net>
At 02:55 PM 3/24/03 -0600, you wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
>
>Hi Kolbers:
>
>....... As a side note, the
>MK III doesn't really care if it is in yaw trim or
>not. Most of the time on the airframe was flown
>with the slip/skid indicator 1/2 ball out of
>trim. No significant performance/handling
>increase has been noted. Probably should have
>said, no performance/handling increase noted,
>other than the ball is now centered. :-)
>
John,
You are correct in that in cruise uncompensated yaw probably does on make much
of a difference. But uncompensated yaw can make quite a difference in one's ability
to side slip the plane for cross wind landings. For some reason, I did
not have a problem with the FireFly until I changed engines, and mounted a larger
propeller that rotates in the opposite direction. Currently, it is very
easy to run out of rudder when slipping to the left compared to slipping to the
right. I have been making parts to add an in cockpit adjustable right wing
tip drag rudder. I should be getting it installed this week.
Jack B. Hart FF004
Jackson, MO
Jack & Louise Hart
jbhart@ldd.net
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Richard Pike <rwpike@charter.net>
At 02:08 PM 3/24/03 -0600, you wrote:
>--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
><snip>
>*Prop to bump the red line, wide open throttle
>(WOT) straight and level flight.
><snip>
>If I prop this way I will get the best cruise and
>the best climb at that pitch setting. A lot of
>you do not want to pitch this way. You want to
>pull more pitch and slow down the two stroke.
>That is ok too (for you) but it ain't the way I do
>it. Start loading the prop and you will have to
>lean out the mixture. Unload the prop and you
>will have to increase fuel and richen it up.
>Pitch it right and it will fly right out of the
>box without diddling with it. hehehe
>
>Take care,
>
>john h
Absolutely agree. This assumes you use the max diameter prop for a given
application. But I submit that if you use a prop somewhat smaller in
diameter than optimum for climb, and still pitch it to turn 6,500 RPM at
full throttle in level flight, you are now carrying more pitch than a full
size prop, and the engine can now run slower at a given airspeed as the
coarser pitch is biting through longer hunks of air. (Screwing itself
through the ether with a coarse pitch rather than a fine pitch takes you
farther per prop revolution at a given prop speed)
The engine is not working harder at any given RPM, because you are not
loading it down any more at any point on the power curve than it would be
anyway.
Since you have pitched it normally, (6,500 RPM WOT, level flight) the load
at any other RPM will still be the same at that RPM as if you used a larger
prop pitched for 6,500 RPM WOT, level flight.
You trade off best climb rate for improved cruise - assuming that your goal
at a given cruise speed is a slower engine RPM.
But assuming that you are using a full size prop, then your choice is still
the best solution.
(I need to quit discussing this and go work on the airplane. Maybe if I get
back flying I can put my money where my mouth is and back this argument up
with some real data...)
Richard Pike
MKIII N420P (420ldPoops)
(Pee Ess: Once again I am so glad to have a Kolb. Visited by a guy with a
Kitfox. Which he always flys solo. Because his useful load -he says- is
only about 350 pounds. That's Sad)
Help Stop Spam!
Delete all address information (especially mine) off everything you
forward, and make Blind Carbon Copy a way of life.
Thanks! And have a blessed day.
rp
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Sun n Fun Mogas Enroute |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
> Sounds good. By the way does anybody sell MOGAS anymore or I am looking at
> getting a crew car to chase down po-dunk Amoco's?
> Kip
Kip/Kolbers:
I know some folks do this, land at a little
airport, then borrow the FBO's car to go someplace
else to buy fuel. That is against my philosophy
for little airplane (UL and Lt Plane) cross
country flying.
Based on the status of most of our little airports
in the US, and Canada, the FBO needs all the help
he can get to stay in business. Using the
courtesy car to go to town to buy someone else's
fuel is not the way to help this guy out, and may
leave a bad taste in his mouth about our sport.
I have always bought and used 100LL in my two
strokes and four strokes when cross countrying.
Saves time, helps the FBO, does not harm the two
stroke, and the four strokes is not going to hurt
them unless they are fed a steady diet of 100LL
for an extended period. Then we use Alcor TCP to
help reduce the amount of lead residue in the
engine.
john h
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Vertical Stabilizer & Yaw Compensation |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
> You are correct in that in cruise uncompensated yaw probably does on make much
of a difference. But uncompensated yaw can make quite a difference in one's
ability to side slip the plane for cross wind landings.
> Jack B. Hart FF004
Jack/Gang:
Shouldn't make any difference with power off.
There is no yaw problem when power is reduced,
only when I am making power. In fact, dead stick
I could get away with no pitch or yaw trim.
Aircraft is trimmed perfectly in these axis's.
Don't know why you have a difference unless:
-You are landing with power.
-More rudder travel one direction over the other.
john h
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Vertical Stabilizer |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
> >If I were you, I'd go with Jim. 4130 would not be that much heavier.
>
> Richard Pike
Richard/Gang:
I am inclined to agree with you. Would be easy to
do away with piano hinges and go to single pin
steel hinges.
We shall see.
All this time I thought I had upgraded the upper
vert stab leading edge to .058". Well.........I
didn't. It is .035". May not have broken (as
soon) had it been .058".
Take care,
john h
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Two Stroke Power Bands |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: Dave Rains <rr@htg.net>
John, I think your right on concerning running the 2-stroke within the
tuned exhaust's operational range. That is the reason I run an R&D tuned
pipe, (those of you afraid of aftermarket pipes don't get your blood
pressure up) that not only provides more HP, but provides a far more Linear
torque curve. If kept within the range your suggest (5200-5800RPM) RPM
hunting is non existent, and changes in RPM during loading and unloading
minimal.
Just my humble opinion (over 1000 hours on 2-strokes)
do not archive
Dave Rains
-----Original Message-----
From: John Hauck [SMTP:jhauck@elmore.rr.com]
Subject: Kolb-List: Two Stroke Power Bands
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
> I have heard the
> arguments, - you run your engine your way, and I'll run mine my way.
Richard P
Richard/Gang:
I don't mess with two strokes anymore, except on
this List. Been years, 13+, since I have owned
and flown one.
I flew every two stroke I ever owned on cross
country flights at 5,800 rpm. That was everything
from Cuyuna to 582. 5,800 rpm with 582 on my MK
III gave me a good solid 80 mph cruise. Not bad
for a big fat two place UL. Burned 5 to 5.5 gph
at that power setting.
Of course the 582 was propped to bump the redline
at WOT straight and level flight.
Perhaps some of our two stroke experts can help
educate me on operation of our two stroke power
plants. I prefer to operate them above the point
in the power band where the two stroke gets on the
pipe. My belief is that the two stroke will
operate more efficiently and perform optimally
above this point where it shifts from operating on
port timing to the point that it operates on port
timing in conjunction with the benefit of the
tuned expansion chamber exhaust system. I do not
know about the newer two strokes, but on the older
ones we used for UL aviation, it was quite
noticeable at about 5200 to 5500 rpm. In that
particular rpm range the engines would not settle
down. Like trying to balance on a ball. Engine
revs would roll up and down depending on what part
of that rpm bracket you were in. Above where the
engine came up on the pipe, things cleaned up, put
out a lot of power, ran and felt good.
My question, is there a lot of difference
operating below and above the point in the power
band where the engine comes on the pipe?
Do we get better performance, reliability,
endurance, above or below the engine comes up on
the pipe?
john h
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Don Gherardini" <donghe@one-eleven.net>
Good post JH
There ya go!!!, You have hit upon what we in the engine biz discuss as "duty
cycle".
There was a discussion some time back in which I feebly attempted to
explain this rating, but from the responses I knew all did not do a very
good job for all to understand.(although I know some did too!)
From your numbers , one can assume that Rotax 912 is running at 100% duty
cycle at 5500rpms, and 106% at 5800. what Rotax is telling you is you can
run at a tad over 100% duty cycle for a short time and you wont hurt it. The
Time factor (5 min) is likely a limit imposed due to heat build up above
what normal cooling apparatus can handle, as heat generated generally goes
up on a logrithmic scale with rpms and cooling system capacity has a very
finite maximum. These ratings apply to both 2 and 4 cycle power[plants. The
big difference in the real world is that a 4 stroke does not build up heat
as fast as a 2 cycle, and over reving a 4 to destruction with no load is
more difficult due to valve float and such...a 2 cycle..particularly a
piston ported engine with no vavle apparatus...can usually be run very fast
very quickly under no load...but again, with NO LOAD...then the duty cycle
is very low at any rpm level. For duty equates to load.
Max hp will be at or near the rpm where the BMEP is the highest, and this
takes WOT.....lets say that 5500 is that spot....without WOT the engine is
NOT producing max hp because the throttle is not open because there is no
load, so the cylinder filling/cylinder pressure is only what it takes to
spin the engine past frictional loads..and that aint much! Could be running
at 20% duty cycle in this condition...maybe less...and making 20 hp...
Now induce a heavy load..where it takes WOT to get 5500and BAM////cylinder
pressure/heat /fuel/ everything is maxed out....making 100 hp and this IS
100%duty cycle..
IN your airplanes you have told us how you set the prop....some people read
it as not using all the power avail....I READ IT as so when you cruise you
are running at less 100% duty cycle and prolonging your engine life
dramatically. Yet you have 106% rated engine rpms available when ya need em!
IF a fella thinks he can run any engine at over 100% continues duty cycle
ratng for very long with out hurting it....Then he is thinking he knows more
than the design team that created the powerplant...the company that built it
and warranties it ...and he likely thinks he can get thru the pearly gates
without the archangel seein him!
BTW....I asked before...as I have never been there, what do you
http://www.geocities.com/dagger369th/my_firefly.htm
Don Gherardini-
FireFly 098all think the chance of getting a check ride in a Kolb is at a
show as busy as Sun'n'Fun must surely be????...Do I have a chance??
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
> BTW....I asked before...as I have never been there, what do you
all think the chance of getting a check ride in a
Kolb is at a
> show as busy as Sun'n'Fun must surely be????...Do I have a chance??
Don/Gang:
You are probably addressing the wrong crowd. You
need to be snugling up to New Kolb Aircraft and
whoever is going to be flying demo rides at
Lakeland. Actually, they will probably fly out of
Lakeland South (Circle X) a few miles south of
Lakeland AP on the Bartow highway between Plant
City and Bartow. Flying demos out of Paradise
City is a real hassle because of the traffic in
the UL traffic pattern and restrictions.
Just guessing, because I have nothing to do with
demo flights anymore, but those customers and
potential airplane kit buyers are given priority.
It is a matter of business. Be glad to fly you if
I was going to have my airplane there, but the
little Fire Fly that I am to fly is shy on seating
capacity. It would probably fly two, if you could
get them in there somewhere. Wing area is about
the same as a Sling Shot. I was surprised, first
passenger I flew in the Sling Shot, that it
performed better in the air with the added weight
than it did solo. Of course it took a little
longer to get off the ground and climbed a little
slower, but the overall flying feel was better, to
me, dual than solo.
Take care and see you all there,
john h
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Sun n Fun Mogas Enroute |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "dama" <dama@mindspring.com>
John, I am well versed on crew car etiquette. I buy probably 500 gallons a
week in courtesy fuel that I don't need (not for the Kolb). I know that
topping off the car or a little tip is a measly 2nd place but I was avoiding
the lead. If you think that 30 gallons of 100LL won't hurt the 503, I'd much
rather go that route.
Kip
http://www.springeraviation.net/
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Sun n Fun Mogas Enroute
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
>
>
> > Sounds good. By the way does anybody sell MOGAS anymore or I am looking
at
> > getting a crew car to chase down po-dunk Amoco's?
>
> > Kip
>
> Kip/Kolbers:
>
> I know some folks do this, land at a little
> airport, then borrow the FBO's car to go someplace
> else to buy fuel. That is against my philosophy
> for little airplane (UL and Lt Plane) cross
> country flying.
>
> Based on the status of most of our little airports
> in the US, and Canada, the FBO needs all the help
> he can get to stay in business. Using the
> courtesy car to go to town to buy someone else's
> fuel is not the way to help this guy out, and may
> leave a bad taste in his mouth about our sport.
>
> I have always bought and used 100LL in my two
> strokes and four strokes when cross countrying.
> Saves time, helps the FBO, does not harm the two
> stroke, and the four strokes is not going to hurt
> them unless they are fed a steady diet of 100LL
> for an extended period. Then we use Alcor TCP to
> help reduce the amount of lead residue in the
> engine.
>
> john h
>
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Shoulder Belt / BRS Deployment Question |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: ALLENB007@aol.com
James,
You could put a kill switch down on the bottom left hand corner of the seat.
There is a place there that is set up to be used for an ignition button. The
rough harnessing for the cigarette lighter is going through there now.
Allen
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Sun n Fun Mogas Enroute |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
> If you think that 30 gallons of 100LL won't hurt the 503, I'd much
> rather go that route.
> Kip
Kip/Gang:
100LL never gave my two strokes a problem. I
burned a lot more than 30 gals too.
I use auto fuel when it is available, but 100LL on
cross countries and avoid the hassle of
procurement.
john h
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tire retailer |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: <rowedl@highstream.net>
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Gerken <gerken@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Kolb-List: Tire retailer
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Jim Gerken" <gerken@us.ibm.com>
>
> What's the name and phone number of the aircraft tire retailer you guys
> have talked about? Time for the Cheng Chins to go on the burning pile.
> The size they read is 15x6.00-6, I assume there is a real aircraft tire of
> same size. Thanks.
>
> Jim Gerken
>
> Jim,
Try Tom Olenik right here on the list, he has a wide variety of tires on his
web page.
olenik-aviation@buyitsellitfixit.com
Denny Rowe
>
>
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Sun n Fun Mogas Enroute |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "dama" <dama@mindspring.com>
See you there with a blue tint to the tanks.
Thanks,
kip
do not archive
http://www.springeraviation.net/
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hauck" <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Sun n Fun Mogas Enroute
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: John Hauck <jhauck@elmore.rr.com>
>
>
> > If you think that 30 gallons of 100LL won't hurt the 503, I'd much
> > rather go that route.
> > Kip
>
> Kip/Gang:
>
> 100LL never gave my two strokes a problem. I
> burned a lot more than 30 gals too.
>
> I use auto fuel when it is available, but 100LL on
> cross countries and avoid the hassle of
> procurement.
>
> john h
>
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 447 lighting coil/ Key West regulator |
--> Kolb-List message posted by: "Bruce McElhoe" <mcelhoe@cvip.net>
Duane,
Yes, We had the same problem with the Key West regulator on our 447. The
input terminals got so hot they turned black and burned away the wire
terminal. Key West replaced the regulator at no charge. Fortunately the
lighting coil in the engine was not damaged.
We put the new regulator on the FireFly, and it worked for three flights.
The regulator overheated again. This time it caused a ground fault in the
lighting coil.
We will have to open the engine to repair the lighting coil....haven't done
it yet.
I'm giving up on Key West.
Regards,
Bruce McElhoe FireFly #88
Reedley, Calif.
> --> Kolb-List message posted by: "H MITCHELL" <mitchmnd@msn.com>
>
>
> I have noticed that the connector that joins the black/yellow wire coming
from my 447's lighting coils to the wire going to my Key West regulator is
discolored as if it has been very hot and the adjacent insulation appears to
be melting. The last time I shut the engine down I hurried back to the
engine and burned the (bleep) out of my fingers when I touched this
connector. When I disconnected all of the wires from the regulator's output
the heating continued after a short engine run. When I disconnected the wire
going to the regulator's input the heating stopped. I did not get a chance
to test but I suspect that one of the diodes in the Key West regulator's
rectifier is burned up. This would allow the output from the lighting coil
to go directly to ground.
>
> Has anyone else had this problem ?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Duane the plane
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|